There are very few groups of people I would trust to correctly choose which “absolute truths” warrant forcibly shoving down everyone’s throat, and none of them I would expect to remain in power for long (if they got it in the first place). Therefore, any mechanism for implementing this can be expected in the future to be used to shove falsehoods, propaganda, and other horrible things down everyone’s throat, and is a bad idea.
Maybe people with ideas like yours need to be forcefully educated of the above truth. :-P
Maybe you meant “forcefully” less literally than I interpreted it.
Yes, that’s also a reason I refuse to bring this question up for quite a long time because “forcefully” sounds too close to what a propaganda machine would do.
What I mean under this particular context is some objective truth, like physical law, that should be a consensus. Critics from my peer suggest that physical law itself may not be an absolute objective truth, thus I’m really curious from that standpoint: If there’s no common ground one can reach, then how would any discussion prove useful?
Let’s suppose that lots of people agree on the objective truth, such as the earth being round, and some wackos don’t.
Some wackos are complete wackos, in the sense that you should keep an eye on them at all times and make sure you’re never alone with them unless you’re prepared to defend yourself. Others have a crazy belief or two while being astonishingly functional in all other aspects of their behavior; my understanding is that this is a thing that happens and isn’t even rare.
Discussion with the first kind of wacko is dangerous. Discussion with the second kind of wacko about the issue they’re wrong about may or may not be helpful; discussion about other things, like organizing a party, may be helpful and good; such a person could even become a friend as you gain confidence in their functionality outside the one issue. Discussion that lets you find out which kind of wacko a person is (and whether they’re a wacko) is useful.
There are very few groups of people I would trust to correctly choose which “absolute truths” warrant forcibly shoving down everyone’s throat, and none of them I would expect to remain in power for long (if they got it in the first place). Therefore, any mechanism for implementing this can be expected in the future to be used to shove falsehoods, propaganda, and other horrible things down everyone’s throat, and is a bad idea.
Maybe people with ideas like yours need to be forcefully educated of the above truth. :-P
Maybe you meant “forcefully” less literally than I interpreted it.
Yes, that’s also a reason I refuse to bring this question up for quite a long time because “forcefully” sounds too close to what a propaganda machine would do.
What I mean under this particular context is some objective truth, like physical law, that should be a consensus. Critics from my peer suggest that physical law itself may not be an absolute objective truth, thus I’m really curious from that standpoint: If there’s no common ground one can reach, then how would any discussion prove useful?
Let’s suppose that lots of people agree on the objective truth, such as the earth being round, and some wackos don’t.
Some wackos are complete wackos, in the sense that you should keep an eye on them at all times and make sure you’re never alone with them unless you’re prepared to defend yourself. Others have a crazy belief or two while being astonishingly functional in all other aspects of their behavior; my understanding is that this is a thing that happens and isn’t even rare.
Discussion with the first kind of wacko is dangerous. Discussion with the second kind of wacko about the issue they’re wrong about may or may not be helpful; discussion about other things, like organizing a party, may be helpful and good; such a person could even become a friend as you gain confidence in their functionality outside the one issue. Discussion that lets you find out which kind of wacko a person is (and whether they’re a wacko) is useful.
After some reading, I found a post Scott wrote. I think this is the answer I needed, pretty much similar to your answer. Thanks!